A hidden fee, that even when added to the price he paid for it used, doesn't come to a price as new, anyway. Not that much to complain about as they still save money.Furioso said:
Saints Row: The Third to require online pass for co-op.
- Thread starter MrGalactus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Kopikatsu said:
Your line of reasoning is also a fallacy; it's called the "Formal logic says it's a fallacy, so it must be one in the real world too" fallacy. Also the "I didn't read the talk page" fallacy. Seriously, the slippery slope very much exists in real life, and it can be used in formal debates; it's only a fallacy when the conclusion doesn't flow from the premise. This is a case where it absolutely does.
OT: I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but THQ is the company that came up with the whole idea, implementing it in their wrestling games some time before EA copied it and called it "Project $10." It makes sense that they'd also be the first ones to take the next step. The sad thing is that they can get away with it -- both because gamers, as consumers, have a case of stockholm syndrome unique to themselves; no other class of consumers would put up with this crap -- and because the publishers have managed to get the laws altered or interpreted in their favor. While this kind of crap should be illegal, and it would be if anyone in the government had any common sense, this is just the tip of the iceberg on what to expect in the coming years. The EFF needs to get off their ass and sponsor a bill to make this kind of thing explicitly illegal, because that's what it's going to take.
No they make less money because there's a third person gaining the benefit of the game and only two copies saw returns go to the developers.direkiller said:
And if that person buys a game used and none of the money goes to the dev how can that person honestly expect the devs to allow him on the multiplayer servers that they are funding and running. It's the same reason why expos and events using tickets either have a non-transferrable mark (like a stamp) to symbolize you're the person who gave them money, or have a no re-entry policy. You all are just being entitled.
I wish I had your kind of luck, as most disks I buy used or as a rental are scratched up beyond comprehension. Makes me wonder what the previous user did with it. And the copies I bought used were in probably worse shape before the store tried to fix it up as best they could.Laxman9292 said:
Even with cars, never expect the previous owner or user to know what they were doing, as not everybody respects what they have. Especially these days.
It does not. Your premise relies on the 'fact' that these companies are nothing but writhing masses of greed. Ever wonder why, out of everything they could have done, they chose multiplayer of all things to cut out? It's because multiplayer costs them money to maintain. Most people buy games used (according to a few articles on the Escapist, anyway), which means that not only is the developer/publisher not seeing any money from that, they were losing money on used sales because that's one more person adding to the strain on the servers. (The argument 'One person replacing another' doesn't hold up. The first person sold their game because they didn't want to play it anymore.)Owyn_Merrilin said:
Project Ten Dollar and the like aren't products of greed, it's a matter of practicality. Part of that $10 goes toward server upkeep...you know, the things being used for the multiplayer. I'm sure the profits raked in from the online passes is nice as well, but I highly doubt the Board sits around thinking of ways to 'fuck over the poor little customers'.
Edit: My point is, you already are locked out of the single player until you pay for the game. (Or pirate it, I guess, but that's not an issue that's being discussed here) I highly, HIGHLY doubt that Project Ten Dollar~ will extend beyond multiplayer for that reason.
The only game I've had a problem with so far concerning online passes is RAGE locking out part of the single player junk instead of multiplayer. Seriously, what was the logic there?
CM156 said:
not to jump in on your guys discussion but, maybe one of you can explain this.Kopikatsu said:
the big deal is what here? the game that's largely a single player game now has, imo, a tacked on multi-player .... thing. now the main draw of the game is still the single player, that's not blocked off so far as i've noticed, just the tacked on multi-player bit.
so ..... >.> am i just dense or is this really just people getting but hurt for nothing?
Correct. That's what I was about to say.Kopikatsu said:
There's also the concern that they'll add an unnecessary online mode in order to capitalize on this, which takes away from time that could be spent on the singleplayer. I don't know how much I fully buy into that, but it's there as a concern to people
no there is not a 3rd person the multiplayer servers cost the same to run regardless of who is on it weather its gamer 2 or gamer 3. its not like gamer 1,2 and 3 can play at the same time it is still 2 new copys sold and 2 people playing. Games are not like conventions or shows that are there for a limited time. They are more like cars, CD, game consoles(something physical). A used sale is not a lost new sale nor is it the consumer cheating you. The sooner you stop treating customers like crap the sooner they will start caring what happens to you.Laxman9292 said:
Im also a firm believer in using rights given to us. It is my right as a consumer to re-sell the licence if i see fit. It is not the company right to tell me what I can and cannot do with that licence provided im not breaking copyright laws.
Same here. But Steam gives you the code and generally copies it to the clipboard. So it takes like 10 seconds to the 5 minutes on console.TheRussian said:
SUPER-GENIUS MAN-CAT PROFESSOR GENKI APPROVES!
SUCCUMB TO THE PRE-ORDER ABILITIES AND LAUGH AT THE PENNY-PINCHING DOG PEOPLE!
IT'S TOTALLY ETHICAL...
...as in "ethical" in Genki's sense, but THQ laughs at your foolish fairness-based moral philosophies!
SUCCUMB TO THE PRE-ORDER ABILITIES AND LAUGH AT THE PENNY-PINCHING DOG PEOPLE!
IT'S TOTALLY ETHICAL...
...as in "ethical" in Genki's sense, but THQ laughs at your foolish fairness-based moral philosophies!
can't say i like online passes ether but ... in this case i'm sorely hard press to care, and its just confusing me people are getting bent out of shape about it, >.< stupid online passes, people aren't supposed to get but hurt like this on this site with out MLP being involved, its just wrong ya know XDKopikatsu said:
>.> don't they do that a lot now anyway? the un-needed/wanted multi-player mode, yeah i guess thats a good reason to be up in arms about it, but >.> there's been a steady increase in multi-player modes for years now, and NOW its an issue? or am i, again , missing somethingCM156 said:
It increases the incentive to do so. That's the major concern. That a game can only have longevity in multiplayer.Kitsuna10060 said:
It's like EULAs/ToSs. People didn't really care when they came out, but all of a sudden NOW they have an issue with them. Probably because people are coming into conflict with it alot more nowadays.Kitsuna10060 said:
As much as I loathe to use the word, it does seem like the reason for it is entitlement. Almost every post I've seen in topics like this is 'IF YOU PAY FOR IT YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT!'.
But then they turn around and complain that wealthy people can do whatever they want. They pay for stuff too, you know? But I digress, that's getting offtopic.
Do I think adding multiplayer modes increases the production costs of games (Thus increasing the amount of sales that companies need in order to break even/turn a profit and therefore contributes to the 'problem' of online passes)? Of course.
Do I think it takes away from the rest of the game? Not really. Development teams can run up to hundreds of people. Most of the time some of them are sitting around because only so many people can work on a single project at once without mucking it up and causing it to take too many resources/time to complete. So they give the people with nothing to do, something to do! Which could very well be multiplayer components.
OOOOOHHHHH. Finding a flaw in my sentence structure then redirecting me to a Wikipedia page.CM156 said:
Is that's the best you can do?
So I read the First-sale doctrine and it doesn't even apply. Not even a little.
The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained.
By making the online pass a separate work they effectively closed that loop hole.
You thought an internet troll learned more about copyright by surfing the web than a lawyer for a major game publisher? That's funny.
Did you stop reading as soon as you found my faulty sentence structure or did you just choose to ignore the last part?
well that's about the biggest load of crap ... i have PS2 games, that i bought new, that i still have and have beaten numerous times, not one has a multi-player mode, save the 2 fighter i have for it. all of which i will likely have LONGER THEM MY PS3 (disappointing consul generation it is :/)CM156 said:
heh ^^;; i'm kinda guilty of that 'entitlement' thing actually, but that only kicks in when it seems like they're blocking off a hunk of the game that 'matters' oddly enough, and is usually silenced by actually looking at whats being cut.Kopikatsu said:
I was doing so for laughs. Nothing more. The thing is, I've done the same sorta thing. I fully apologize if you were in any way take aback.Mikeyfell said:
Secondly, I was referring to your part about game developers deserving a cut of second hand sales. Taken on it's own, that goes against the FSD. But if you were referring to them getting money though second hand sales through Online passes, yes. That's in accordance with the FSD. So perhaps we had a miss-communication. In which case, I apologize again.
Basic economics: Companies /are/ nothing but writhing masses of greed. If they weren't, they'd go out of business very quickly.Kopikatsu said:
Less flippant now: It is absolutely a matter of greed. I really don't want to have this argument, but it looks like I'm going to have to. For one thing, multiplayer costs the company next to nothing to run; it's almost entirely user hosted, whether we're looking at matchmaking or dedicated servers. For another, Even if it did cost them money to run, those costs are factored into the costs on each copy of the game; if it weren't it would be a WoW style subscription based service -- and before you say "well, what about used players? They didn't pay;" they did. They payed the person who bought it new, and got their slot on the server in return. The original user can't use it anymore; only the person who has the game can do that. The right of first sale is there for a reason; it's to protect consumers from this kind of crap. I would love to see you explain to me how it doesn't apply in this case just because the first user no longer wants to play their game; that's how the market works. An object doesn't have to be destroyed if the original user no longer wants it; it can be sold second hand. Ownership is transferred. The end. All of this EULA bullcrap has been an attempt on the part of the publishers to sidestep a very important consumer right, and it sickens me when I see people who this hurts (read: anyone who buys stuff[footnote]executives and shareholders of publishing companies also may not be hurt by this in the long run, since they'll be too busy raking in the ill gotten profits to worry about the relatively small hit their wallet takes from buying products from other companies used, assuming they aren't so rich that they never wear the same suit twice, let alone buy anything used.[/footnote]) defending it.
About used sales: They charge too much. $60 is more than any entertainment product is worth to the average consumer. The average consumer knows this, and does what a consumer should do: they buy it for the cheapest price they can find. Right now, the publishers are setting a price and a quantity supplied higher than the consumers can support. With the quantity supplied, we're looking at a price demanded closer to $20 than $60. If they seriously want to sell all of the games they're making, let alone the ones from the additional print runs they claim they'd like to make, economics 101 says they need to lower the price. If they can't lower the price, because it's so expensive to make that their profit margins are already stretched to the breaking point(and they aren't; AAA games have nothing on blockbuster movies in terms of cost to produce, despite the fact that movies are so much cheaper for the end user) they need to lower the supply and quit complaining about the consumers who aren't buying at that price, because they aren't going to. Those people are not and will not be their customers, because they can't afford to buy games at the price point that the developers have set. There are people out there who can afford the $60 price point, but it's a much smaller market than the game companies want to tap into, and it's certainly not the market that they complain about. The only way to get the customers who can't afford it to bite is to lower the price -- a service that, wouldn't you know it, Gamestop provides.
Oh, by the way: you say you doubt Project Ten Dollar will ever extend beyond multiplayer, follow it up give an example of a game that did just that, and then say that I'm the one who has a hard time recognizing when a conclusion follows from a premise? Sure, buddy, and I'm the tooth fairy.